In this session, participants will examine how the rise of populist, far-right and antidemocratic forces in member states could spill over into the EU’s institutions and legal framework. Participants will discuss how the EU’s values could be reinterpreted, rather than rejected, by anti-democratic forces, and how its institutions and legal procedures might be altered or even “weaponized” to facilitate authoritarian rule within member states. In groups, participants will identify risks of Rule of Law backsliding, focusing on the EU’s decision-making, checks and balances, and rules enforcement, as well as threats to key “democratic pillars” such as independent media and free elections. While identifying risks will be the main goal, the workshop will also help initiate the assessment of whether mitigating the risks requires political, legalistic or institutional responses.

With:

Konstantin Kipp | PhD Candidate, Hertie School

Eric Maurice | Policy Analyst, European Policy Centre

John Morijn | Chair in Law and Politics in International Relations and Assistant Professor of European Human Rights Law, University of Groningen

Liza Saris | Project Manager, Connecting Europe

The European Union’s annual Rule of Law reporting process is now in its 6th year. Billed as a landmark and innovative approach to tackling rule of law backsliding in the EU, the European Commission expends significant efforts engaging civil society inputs into the reporting process. While the participation of civil society is critical to the functioning of the process, serious concerns have been expressed regarding the integration of these inputs into the final report and the nature and quality of the stakeholder engagement itself. This side-session will bring together stakeholders to debate the impact the process has had and critically assess the role that civil society organisations have played and can potentially play going forward. There will be three rounds of audience-guided discussion gathered in real time to quickly harness the expertise in the room and to develop a set of recommendations on the rule of law process.

With:

Luise Bublitz | Lawyer and Case Coordinator, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte 

Balázs Dénes | Executive Director, Civil Liberties Union for Europe

Ronan Kennedy | Senior Policy Officer, Irish Council for Civil Liberties 

Angelika Nußberger | Director, Academy for European Human Rights Protection, University of Cologne, Member of the Venice Commission, Chair re:constitution Advisory Board

Jože Štrus | Policy Officer, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission (remotely)

What does it mean to take a stand when democratic norms are slowly but deliberately being dismantled? This panel brings together individuals that have taken a public stand against rule of law backsliding, whether in the legal profession, civil society, or journalism, all of which are often among the first targets of authoritarian efforts to silence dissent. Through principled resignations, legal advocacy or investigative reporting, the panel highlights what it means to take a stand when institutions falter. What does solidarity look like across professional boundaries? And how can we build networks of mutual support that transcend national lines?

With:

Rachel Cohen | Strategic and External Affairs Coordinator, Lowell and Associates

Can Dündar | Journalist, Head of CORRECTIV Project #ÖZGÜRÜZ

Michael Meyer-Resende | Executive Director, Democracy Reporting International

Márta Pardavi | Co-Chair, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, re:constitution Advisory Board Member 

Neus Vidal Martí | Executive Director, Seek Initiative, re:constitution Advisory Board Member

Across Europe and globally, right-wing actors are increasingly using lawfare—tactical litigation and the reinterpretation of the rule of law—to erode fundamental rights, reshape governance, and advance authoritarian agendas. The discussion will center around three guiding questions:

1. What is lawfare, and how do we understand and conceptualize it?

2. What strategies do lawfare actors use to restrict rights and capture the legal field?

3. What possibilities and tools exist for resisting lawfare and countering right-wing legal mobilization?

Participants will draw on case studies from Europe, including restrictions on reproductive rights and attacks on civil society and the judiciary. The debate will also offer insights from strategic litigation, transnational legal mobilization, and civil resistance. The roundtable will be driven by audience input. Participants will respond to the three highlighted questions through an online platform, with further reactions encouraged through a Q&A.

With: 

Pola Cebulak | Associate Professor in European Law, Transnational Legal Studies Department, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, re:constitution Alumna

Neil Datta | Executive Director, European Parliamentary Forum

Karolina Kocemba | Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow, Erasmus University Rotterdam, re:constitution Alumna

Katarzyna Krzyżanowska | PhD Candidate, European University Institute, re:constitution Alumna

Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka | Associate Professor, Nicolaus Copernicus University, re:constitution Alumna

Kersty McCourt | Senior Advocacy Advisor, Civil Liberties Union for Europe

Zuzanna Nowicka | PhD Candidate, Jagiellonian University and Lawyer, Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights

Ezgi Özlü | Post-Doc Researcher, University of Strasbourg, re:constitution Alumna

Can rule of law defenders, lawyers, and civil society organizations use institutions to protect rights when these institutions are losing independence and constitutional powers? This session explores dilemmas faced by litigators when judicial independence is under attack and choices confronting advocates when institutions are weakened or captured. Maina Kiai, Kenyan lawyer, human rights activist, and former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association, will provide global perspectives on institutional challenges and practitioner responses. The panellists will then examine practical examples from the European Union, from the Recharging Advocacy for Rights in Europe (RARE) programme and particularly Hungary, illustrating how defenders navigate compromised institutional landscapes. A moderated discussion with participants will facilitate reflection on speakers' interventions and experience sharing, exploring strategies for protecting rule of law when traditional institutional safeguards are eroded. This interactive session addresses critical questions facing legal professionals and advocates working in increasingly challenging political environments worldwide.

With:

Maina Kiai | Kenyan Lawyer and Human Rights Activist

Noémi Fanni Molnár | Lawyer and PhD Candidate, ELTE Center for Theory of Law, re:constitution Alumna

Márta Pardavi | Co-Chair, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, re:constitution Advisory Board Member

Migration is increasingly presented as a threat and its governance as requiring crisis response. This serves as a justification for restrictive practices - some operating within the existing constitutional framework, others blatantly disregarding the law. In Europe, examples of this trend relate to practices that are presented as responding to so-called instrumentalisation of migration, hybrid threats or the alleged outdatedness of legal frameworks governing migration and asylum. Pushbacks and ‘suspensions’ of the right to seek asylum are inscribed into law or efforts are made to reinterpret the existing framework to justify such measures. The panel seeks to explore how law - international, European and national - is used to justify restrictive, sometimes, paradoxically, unlawful measures. What safeguards can be used to guard against securitisation of migration, and how could these safeguards be used to protect migrants in practice?

With:

Aleksandra Ancite-Jepifánova | Research Associate, King’s College London, re:constitution Alumna

Jonas Bornemann | Assistant Professor of European Law, University Groningen, re:constitution Alumnus

Francesco Luigi Gatta | Assistant Professor of EU Law, University of Palermo, re:constitution Alumnus

This workshop introduces a method of scenario analysis for resilience-building developed during the Thuringia and Judicial Resilience projects of Verfassungsblog. The workshop will interactively present the innovative methodological approach and its assumptions. It further discusses the building blocks of scenarios, data collection and the criterion of ‘plausibility’. Using examples from the Judicial Resilience Project, the workshop aims to bridge the academia-practice gap. We reflect on how the project has benefited from academic best practices from law and social science research and how its findings could be used in educational, civil society, and policymaking contexts. Particular attention will be paid to scenario analysis as an approach to social and legal inquiry, which could be fruitfully applied by civil society organisations and academics in other contexts. Finally, we reflect with participants on how scenario analysis can contribute to advocacy efforts for resilience building.

With:

Etienne Hanelt |Researcher, Judicial Resilience Project, Verfassungsblog and Judicial Studies Institute, Masaryk University, re:constitution Alumnus

Friedrich Zillessen | Team Lead, Judicial Resilience Project and Senior Editor, Verfassungsblog